Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[baldusi]

Couldn't they, after CCiCAP (around 2014), make a competition for Crew AND Cargo? That's should support at least two suppliers with three or four launches/year each, or even three supplies with two to three launches.

I think Dragon is the only crew craft currently also targeting cargo.

Would the crew-only proposals have the fully-automated docking processes (eg at no point relies on a human for sense checking or triggering an abort) necessary to support cargo runs?

cheers, Martin

Both Boeing and SNC have stated that their spacecrafts will have full autonomous capabilities, and could work as cargo vehicles (with some mods). Who knows, may be they'll just do crew now, and once they know how long the ISS will be extended, then they'll do a crew/cargo competition.
On the other hand, if the next step is an EML2 station, they'll want to have commercial supplies there, too. A Dragon/Falcon Heavy and CST-100/Atlas 551 or Delta IV Heavy could very well be a good solution for them.

[Prober]

Thank God for the Russians, or the would not be price starting point for commercial!

The Russians need to be concerned about their own Space Program, and very quickly.   Can you say China.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-putin-says-push-military-ties-china-085745345.html

"Putin says to push military ties with China"    Once the military ties start, they will grow into the Space assets of Russia.  China wants the technology and Oil from Russia.  Russia needs new CNC machines and tools.

this is a dark day.

[Prober]

SpaceX never stated that their intention was to stay in LEO. Yes this contract is for LEO but, this is just a stepping stone in their plans.

You miss the point......

1) SpaceX is not NASA
2) atm the Congress and the Administration have issues about Commercial crew etc.
3) NASA "officially" is using commercial to do ONLY LEO and free up assets so NASA can focus on BEO.
4) Unofficially, if you have followed the many threads over the last few years, you know that many in the administration wish to kill NASA and use the former NASA funds for education.
5) The comments about using commercial for NASA services beyond LEO feeds into #4 above.  Further it goes against agreements in place with Congress.
6) SpaceX can do what they wish.

Hope this opens up the thinking of many as to where we are now and  what is/might be happening.

[Prober]

What if ATK drops their Liberty proposal as its currently proposed, keeps th capsule part, drops the LV part and replaces it with a human rated Delta IV-Heavy?

Not viable, it would be too expensive to win a contract.

I agree with you Jim as the industry stands now.   

However PWR is up for sale (wish I owned it), and the right person(s) could make some major changes.   Could work.
 

[mr. mark]

SpaceX is already in discussions with NASA for a Mars mission. It is only in the discussions phase. Just answering, I'm sure if you go to the red Dragon thread you will see some info on this.

http://www.space.com/12489-nasa-mars-life-private-spaceship-red-dragon.html

"3) NASA "officially" is using commercial to do ONLY LEO and free up assets so NASA can focus on BEO". - this statement would be incorrect based on the ongoing SpaceX/NASA MARS discussions.

[Jim]

However PWR is up for sale (wish I owned it), and the right person(s) could make some major changes.   Could work.
 

No it wouldn't.

That will have little affect on the cost of RS-68's much less the cost of a DIV Heavy

[Jim]

SpaceX is already in discussions with NASA for a Mars mission.

That isn't "NASA", it is a few people at NASA but it isn't an agency consensus.

[mr. mark]

Yes Jim, this is another problem with large organizations. It will be interesting to see just who these discussions within NASA are with. Now back to our normal programming.......

[Jim]

Yes Jim, this is another problem with large organizations. It will be interesting to see just who these discussions within NASA are with.

Scientists and not program or project representatives. 

[muomega0]

Many great comments on this thread.

Three options for the capsule seem obvious:
- Apollo landing in water
- Apollo landing on land
- winged

By function and progress and programmatics, the selection is quite easy.

1. Dragon has landed in the water.

2. Dream chaser for the winged approach. (land landing reduces ops costs)

3. Partial funding to Blue Origin to examine LAS.

The costs savings are realized in smaller launch vehicles and selecting between Orion and CST-100.

So for the rest:

NASA JSC uses SLS/Orion dollars to evaluate Orion vs CST-100 (lands on land), and sorts out the best LAS.   

NASA MSFC uses SLS/HLV dollars to crew rate the EELV program and trade it against Liberty.

[Jim]

The lead companies will provide a spacecraft (with it own LAS) with their choice of launch vehicle.  It is not up to NASA to mix and match.


Contestants are (in random order)

Blue Origin with ULA (their own launch vehicle is too far behind)
Spacex (Dragon and Falcon)
ATK (composite CM with LM support and Liberty LV)
Boeing with ULA
SNC with ULA

[Lurker Steve]

Many great comments on this thread.

Three options for the capsule seem obvious:
- Apollo landing in water
- Apollo landing on land
- winged

By function and progress and programmatics, the selection is quite easy.

1. Dragon has landed in the water.

2. Dream chaser for the winged approach. (land landing reduces ops costs)

3. Partial funding to Blue Origin to examine LAS.

The costs savings are realized in smaller launch vehicles and selecting between Orion and CST-100.

So for the rest:

NASA JSC uses SLS/Orion dollars to evaluate Orion vs CST-100 (lands on land), and sorts out the best LAS.   

NASA MSFC uses SLS/HLV dollars to crew rate the EELV program and trade it against Liberty.

Sorry, but you will have Congressional oversight shuttting down the entire mess if you think SLS/Orion funding plays into this at all. NASA already made a choice between the LM designed Orion and the Boeing designed CST. No need to re-visit the decision.

The ATK's 5-segment booster has it's own competition coming up on SLS, and it doesn't involve spending money to crew-rate the existing EELVs.

[Downix]

With the downselect to 2.5 here is my thinking.

Boeing is the clear leader here.  Their system is the furthest along, sorry SpaceX fans but with the revelation that DragonRider won't even share moldlines with the cargo varient I no longer put Dragon as far ahead.

SNC is also far along, but when combined with Boeing allows for faster setup of ULA, which helps both along.  I would put it in the second slot, as by doing so you have both solutions progressing faster than they would apart.

I would put SpaceX third, because regardless of CCDev, they are planning on progression regardless.  By being the half-solution, they would have less of a thumb on them, which would please SpaceX I would imagine, but NASA would still have some link to them which is essential.

ATK put together a wiz bang of a presentation, but it would be effectively starting all over again.  If, however, SpaceX is not pleased with NASA control as being required by the new language, ATK would be a fine substitute for the 0.5 spot.

Blue Origin is trailing, I would imagine it falling.  Excalibur Almaz is further ahead at this point, and it is unfunded.

[Lars_J]

Boeing is the clear leader here.  Their system is the furthest along, sorry SpaceX fans but with the revelation that DragonRider won't even share moldlines with the cargo varient I no longer put Dragon as far ahead.

What revelation? Source?

[docmordrid]

Aren't the external panels that make up the mold line in the SD area just their SPAM TPS formed to a different outline? What's such a big deal about swapping in the right set?

Also. what if Dragon 2.0 is used for both purposes but just stripped down for cargo? IIRC this kind of swapping has been mentioned before.

[mmeijeri]

Boeing is the clear leader here.

How so? Dragon has flown and safely returned to Earth twice and berthed with the ISS once. CST-100 has completed drop tests of a test article.

[Downix]

Aren't the external panels that make up the mold line in the SD area just their SPAM TPS formed to a different outline? What's such a big deal about swapping in the right set?

Also. what if Dragon 2.0 is used for both purposes but just stripped down for cargo? IIRC this kind of swapping has been mentioned before.

You'd also have to consider the internal structural changes needed to support those new thrusters.  You add high end thrusters to a lightweight aluminum structure not designed to support the thrust, you would cause the capsule to crush like a tin can. 

I do, however, suspect that your thought on Dragon 2.0 may be closer to truth, save then the cargo version would be heavier, due to this added thrust structure support demand.

[Downix]

Boeing is the clear leader here.

How so? Dragon has flown and safely returned to Earth twice and berthed with the ISS once. CST-100 has completed drop tests of a test article.

Not the same vehicle, SpaceX does not even use the same name.  It has Dragon and Dragonrider, and while they do obviously share systems, they are not one and the same.

[Lars_J]

Boeing is the clear leader here.

How so? Dragon has flown and safely returned to Earth twice and berthed with the ISS once. CST-100 has completed drop tests of a test article.

Not the same vehicle, SpaceX does not even use the same name.  It has Dragon and Dragonrider, and while they do obviously share systems, they are not one and the same.

Don't make stuff up. Yes, they us "dragonrider" informally for the crew version - but they have continually stressed that Dragon was design with human rating in mind, able to evolve into a full crew version.

Edit: Check out there update for the CCDEV2 milestone: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php#Update031612 - Count the references to "dragonrider" vs "dragon".

[yg1968]

The lead companies will provide a spacecraft (with it own LAS) with their choice of launch vehicle.  It is not up to NASA to mix and match.


Contestants are (in random order)

Blue Origin with ULA (their own launch vehicle is too far behind)
Spacex (Dragon and Falcon)
ATK (composite CM with LM support and Liberty LV)
Boeing with ULA
SNC with ULA

We know that (at least most of us do). But the unknown is what is a "partial" or ".5" award. Could a partial award only includes milestones for the spacecraft and none for the LV?